JUDGMENT Walford, J. - This is a revision application by Gaya Lal, Kalwar, against the order of the learned Sessions Judge, Hardoi, dismissing his appeal and un holding his conviction u/s 19(1) of the Arms Act and a sentence of two years' rigorous imprisonment and a fire of Rs. 200 passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Eilgram, Hardoi. 2. The facts briefly stated are that on 24th June, 1945 a little before sunrise the station officer of Harpalpur assisted by the Sub-Inspector of police outpost Arwal raided the house of the applicant and upon a search recovered a pistol, Ex. I, gun-powder, Ex. II and some percussion caps Ex. III from a room in the house of the applicant. The two Sub-Inspectors and the two search-witnesses prove the recovery of the articles mentioned above. 3. Gaya Lal denied the recovery of these articles from his house but in the alternative the case for the defense was that these things had been planted in his house on account of enmity between himself on the one side and one Nawab Singh and the police officers on the other. He further pleaded that he bad been victimized in this manner because some fortnight before the occurrence he had sent an application. Ex. A, to the Deputy Inspector-General of police in which he had complained against the high handedness of the police and Nawab Singh. Both the Courts below have rejected this plea and have believed the prosecution evidence. 4. The Learned Counsel for the applicant has argued that the finding of fact in this revision should not be accepted because the trial Court had approached the case in a manner which showed that he was prejudiced against the applicant and his acceptance of the evidence was colored by the fact that he had looked into certain police records with regard to the character of the applicant which he ought not to have done. A remark in the judgment of the learned Magistrate, which is the basis of the grievance of the applicant, is as follows: I have seen the confidential record of Gaya Lal maintained in the police station. A perusal of his criminal history reveals that he has got a very bad record from a long time. Village Chhochhpur is inhabited by a number of criminal persons. It has become a notorious village. A perusal of his criminal history reveals that he has got a very bad record from a long time. Village Chhochhpur is inhabited by a number of criminal persons. It has become a notorious village. Gaya Lal appears to be a leader of the bad characters of this village. It appears to me that police was on watch against him and when Gaya Lal know about this- fact he sent false complaints of the police to. the D.I.G. as a precautionary measure. 5. There can be no doubt that the conduct of the learned Magistrate is wholly indefensible and his looking into the police record and allowing his judgment to be influence thereby is a violation of the fundamental principles of criminal jurisprudence. Surely it is an elementary principle of law that no Court should be influenced by any knowledge it derives from any source except the legal evidence produced before it. In a criminal trial the character of an accused person is wholly irrelevant unless the accused had given evidence of good character vide Section 53 of the Evidence Act. 6. It has been argued by the learned Government Advocate that the Sessions Judge in appeal has completely ignored the consideration which may have influenced the Magistrate and has examined the evidence without any reference to the remarks made by the trial Court and therefore though the conduct of the trial Magistrate was improper, it ought not to influence the decision of this case. He has referred to Section 167 of the Evidence Act, which is as follows: The improper admission or rejection of evidence shall not be ground of itself for a new trial or reversal of any decision in any case, if it shall appear to the Court before which such objection is raised that, independently of the evidence objected to and admitted there was sufficient evidence to justify the decision or that, if the rejected evidence had been received, it ought rot to have varied the decision 7. It is strenuously urged that the application, Ex. A did on the face of it appear to be a peshbandi and no great value need be attached to it. 8. The ratio decides in therefore is whether the two search witnesses should be believed ? It is strenuously urged that the application, Ex. A did on the face of it appear to be a peshbandi and no great value need be attached to it. 8. The ratio decides in therefore is whether the two search witnesses should be believed ? Both these witnesses admittedly were not of a village in which the applicant lived, but nothing has been urged to show that they were persons unworthy of credence. Their evidence stands corroborated to some extent by the defense witnesses produced by the applicant himself. The defense witnesses admit that the pistol gunpowder and the percussion caps were brought out of the house by the chaukidar. It is therefore established that the offending articles were in the house of the applicant and the only question is whether they were planted by the police and a mere show was made of their recovery or that, as proved by the two search-witnesses, recovered from the (sic)The lower Appellant court has considered their evidence and I see ruling in its judgment to (sic) an (sic) in revision. 9. Before, be waver take have of this case I must scraggly on denn the practice of the learned Magistrate of looking into police papers and making use of them judicially. 10. The Learned Counsel for the applicant has urged that having regard to the age of the applicant which is said to be 60 years -the sentence of two years' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 200 is too severe. There is some force in this. I accordingly reduce the sentence to one year's rigorous in president and a the of Rs. 100. 11. With this modification the application stands dismissed.